weather. >> temperatures are coming up, the patchy fog burning off. low 40s to low 50s around the bay area. some of those spots along the valley floor where we see the chilliest temperatures still lingering but feeling pretty good as we get into the next hour. by the lunch hour temperatures will be in the mid-50s along the coast, and for the afternoon, a near repeat of yesterday. 72 in fairfield, 68 fremont, 68 oakland, 70 santa rosa. low 60s in san francisco. 50s along the coast, pacifica, half moon bay. the cooling trend begins tomorrow with unsettled weather entering the picture tuesday night into wednesday. we are going to remain in an unsettled pattern through next weekend. that is our report. thank you for trusting ktvu channel 2 news. >> be sure to join us for our next newscast at 5:00. we want to leave you with a live look at the finish line for the oakland running festival where some runners have been going since 7:30 this

morning and are finally getting to end their race. thanks for joining us, everyone. have a great sunday.

. >> chris: i'm chris wallace, rand paul shakes up the political landscape. ♪ >> chris: from his marathon filibuster on the senate floor

to his straw poll victory over the g.o.p. establishment, rand paul is grabbing headlines and turning heads. is he the flavor of the month, or a force to be reckoned with in 2016? we'll ask the tea party's favorite son, senator rand paul. it is a fox news sunday exclusive. then, a pivotal moment for same sex marriage. with the supreme court ready to hear two cases this week, the rights of same sex couples hang in the balance. we'll talk with key players on both sides of the debate. nicole wallace, former advisor to president bush. and, gary bauer of american values. plus, reengaging in the middle east. we'll ask our sunday panel what the president's trip means for israel, iran and syria. and, our power player of the week. a changing of the guard for the marine mascot. all, right now, on fox news sunday. ♪ >> chris: and, hello again from

fox news in washington. well, there is no doubt about it. rand paul is on a ll. his 13-hour senate filibuster on the president's drone policy spurred new interest in who he is and what he stands for. so where does he see all of this going? senator paul joins us now from bowling green, kentucky and, senator, welcome back to fox news sunday. >> good morning, chris. >> chris: ever since your filibuster earlier this month, you are standing -- your standing in the republican party shot up, you won the straw poll and made a major speech on immigration reform this week and will headline an ios state republican dinner inm may. why do you think you are such a hot topic then republican party? >> people are hungry for someone who will stand up on principle and the right to trial by jury is something a lot of people should agree with, you know, both on the right and the left and even some on the left were

disappointed in the president by not being firm and clear, that everybody has a right to trial by jury, that we would never drone someone in america. and it was disappointing to many he wouldn't answer the question and it was like drilling teeth and took 13 hours of filibuster for him to say, no we will not kill noncombatants in america. it was well worth it and it really served to narrow presidential power which i think is power, to draw limits. >> chris: we're going to get to the substance of the filibuster, a little bit later. but, does all of this attention now, does it increase your interest in and your sense of the feasibility of running for president in 2016? >> well, you know, i've always said, i wanted to be part of the national debate. i think the republican party needs to figure out how to be bigger and i think i do bring ideas to that. and i talk with republican national committee, the republican national committee chair man about things we need to do to be competitive on the west coast and new england and

illinois and i think some of those ideas are more libertarian-republican approach to things and a lot of young people attracted to that and, it would be good if we accepted something more than the cookie cutter conservatives in the past. >> chris: does it increase your interest in running for president? sounds like the answer is yes. >> well, i'm definitely being part of the debate and i think the country is suffering, 12 million people out of work and i want to be part of the answers to it. whether or not that actually is me, specifically, running for president, i don't know that yet but i know that i think the country is suffering with significant unemployment, stagnation, there is still question whether we are dipping into recession, at this point. and we need something new and the party needs something new to grow and i want to be part of that. >> chris: i want to pick up on that. republicans, right now, see you and florida senator marco rubio, jockeying for position.

at cpac you talked about your various ideas -- and we'll get into them in a moment -- how to grow the party and senator rubio talked about it. let's look at what he had to say: >> we don't need a new idea. there is an idea. the idea is called america. and it still works. >> chris: question. is that enough? america still works? >> well, i don't think we need new principles. i think the principles we have, we need to be more exclusive with and, instead of, you know, working around and saying we want revenue-neutral tax reform we want to say, we want to leave more money in the economy and reduce taxes. when ronald reagan did it we had 7% growth in one year and that is the bold leadership we need but it's not a new principle. we don't have to reinvent ourselves in that way but we have to stand on principle and unless you stand for something people are not motivated to vote for you. >> chris: let's talk about what you stand about, immigration. you came out with your ideas for a comprehensive plan this week and since then you are taking

fire from both the right and the left. you call your plan for creating a legal status. not citizenship, but a legal status, for the 11 million folks who are already here, illegal immigrants who are here but taking fire from the right because you oppose the e-verify system which would make it easier for employers to check whether their workers are in fact legal or illegal. why would you oppose that? >> that's not the main part of my plan. the main part is trust but verify, we have to have border security and conservatives always wanted border security before we had immigration reform and the amendment i'll add to the bipartisan plan will ensure that there is border security and congress gets to vote on that border security every year, in order for it to go forward and with regard to e-verify. it is not that i am opposed to some sort of databased check. for example when you come into the country, i think the country should do a background check on you to find out if you are a

felon or if there is a problem. and i think that that -- those who come in and get a work visa should be in the database and when someone applies for welfare, it should be mandatory that they look at that database to make sure you are not here on work visa which means you are not eligible to vote and you are not eligible to get welfare. i'm not against any kind of checking, i would prefer the government to be the policeman and not the business man. it is rare, whether it happens, business men who have expenses to do this or whether government should do it. >> chris: let's talk about your idea which is important to you, it should be congress. according to the gang of 8 plan, it would be governors and a commission and they'd decide whether or not the border is secure. you want congress to get into this. and there are some republicans who say you are setting up the g.o.p. for a fall because it will be a vote in congress and it will be political. a lot of republicans will say, gee, we are not satisfied with border security. and, that will only increase their sense of separation from hispanic voters. >> i would argue the opposite.

i would argue that you are only going to get the conservatives, particularly a republican house, to pass immigration reform, if we as conservatives are reassured that the border is controlled and that we get their vote on whether -- to vote on whether the border is controlled. we have not believed in the past that... in 1986 when we normalized folks, they said we'll get border security and a lot of people it never happened and has soured the debate for 20 years, i think my trust but verify will bring the house along, no immigration reform will happen unless republicans in the house sign onto it. and i don't think they'll sign onto it unless you get something like what i'm talking about and it would include governors as well and border patrol and investigator general and it would have a matrix of things such as how many people are being captured, how many people, felons are being turned away. that kind of thing and congress would vote on it. the main reason i don't want the president to stamp it, is, i don't trust any president, republican or democrat to do a

good enough job to say the border is secure. every representative should get to vote on that. >> chris: you are as you mentioned a libertarian conservative and in your cpac speech you embrace some of those principles. let's take a look: >> our party is encumbered by an inconsistent approach to freedom, we must embrace the economic and the personal sphere. >> chris: let's talk about the personal sphere, because, you would like to relax some of the laws for people who possess and are smoking marijuana and you also in the senate have voted against, in fact, to ban -- rather, against a ban on synthetic recreational drugs. why are you more lenient on drug laws, sir? >> the main thing i've said is not to legalize them but not to incarcerate people for extended periods of time. i'm working with senator leahy

with a bill on mandatory minimums. there are people in jail for 37, 50, 45 years, for nonviolent crimes. and that is a huge mistake. our preference are full of nonviolent criminals. and i don't want to encourage people to do it. i think even marijuana is bad to do and takes away your incentive to work and show up and do the things you should be doing. i don't think it is a good idea. i don't want to promote that but i don't want to put people in jail and make the mistake. a lot of young people do this and later on in their 20s, grow up and quit doing things like this and i don't want to ruin their lives. the last two presidents could conceivably have been put in jail for their drug use and look what would have happened, it would have ruined their lives, and, poor kids, particularly in the inner city, don't get lucky and have good attorneys and go to jail for these things and i think it is a big mistake. >> chris: actually it would be the last three presidents, but who is counting. let's ask about a different issue. the supreme court -- he didn't inhale. the supreme court will hear

arguments on same sex marriage, and you say the federal government should stay out of this issue and leave as it has been traditionally left to the states. should the court, therefore, strike done the defense of marriage act which is one of the cases that will be hearing this, this week, which bans federal benefits, for same sex couples, who are legally married in their states. would you strike down that as federal interference in a state matter? >> i think it is a really complicated issue. i have always said the states have a right to decide. i do believe in traditional marriage, kentucky decided it, and i don't think the federal government should tell us otherwise. there are states that have decided in the opposite fashion, and i don't think the federal government should tell anybody or any state government how they should decide this. marriage has been a state issue for hundreds and hundreds of years. it is complicated, because it provides protection for the states from the federal government. but, you are right. part of it federalizes the issue. i think there is a chance the court could strike down the federalization part of it.

if they do, i think the way to fix it is maybe to try to make all of our laws more neutral towards the issue, and, i don't want the government promoting something i don't believe in. but i also don't mind if the government tries to be neutral on the issue, you know, the tax code, i'm for a flat income tax and we wouldn't have marriage as part of the tax code. health insurance, i think there is a way to write it where it would be neutral and you wouldn't bring marriage into the idea of health insurance. >> chris: i want to go back to your filibuster, in which you argued against the president's drone policy, especially, with regard to targeting of american citizens on american soil. after you would filibuster for 13 hours, you got this letter from attorney general holder, in which he wrote: does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an american not engaged in combat on american soil? the answer to that, is no. senator paul, after your filibuster you said you were happy with that letter, but, in fact, doesn't it leave a huge

loophole because it seems to me, what attorney general holder is saying, just by implication, or -- is that the president does have the authority to use the drone strike on an american on u.s. soil, who is involved in combat. >> well, see, here's the thing, i have never argued against -- if people are attacking the twin towers with planes, an imminent or active ongoing threat i never argued you wouldn't use drones or planes or f-16s to repel that kind of attack, but a lot of the drone attacks, targeting killing overseas are killing people not actively engaged in combat and that is another debate but that standard cannot be used here. if you are accused of being associated with terrorism, which could mean you are an arab-american and sent e-mails to a relative in the middle east, and you should get your day in court, a lawyer and a trial and most americans agree. did the president completely slam the door on not using

drones, no, there is wiggle room in there but we forced him to narrow what his power is and that was my goal. >> chris: senator paul as i was studying up for the interview and hearing you today, i'm having difficulty figuring out where you are on the political spectrum. in some sense as you are to the left of barack obama when it comes to drones, on the other hand, you are to the right of congressman paul ryan, whose budget you oppose, voted against this weekend, in the senate, because you say that it doesn't cut the budget balance -- budget fast enough. do you think there is room for a realistic, feasible presidential candidate who is to the left of obama on some issues and to the right of paul ryan, on other issues? >> i think we have a confusing spectrum, the left-right spectrum doesn't always work for people but because of the confusion it shows that someone like myself, i think, could appeal to young people, independents and moderates, because, many of them do think it is a mistake to put people in

jail for marijuana use and throw away the key. so, i think there are people who would like a less aggressive foreign policy and there are all kinds of issues that don't neatly left in the left-right paradigm that i think would help, because we're not doing very well in a lot of these states, purple and blue states and we need a candidate that would appeal across the left-right paradigm. >> chris: briefly, 30 seconds left, though. your budget which would balance the budget, your plan, would balance the budget in five years, paul ryan's which has come under attack for balancing it in ten years, you have introduced it three consecutive years in the senate, the most votes you got was this weekend when you got 18 of 100 senators, isn't it out of the mainstream? >> well, the thing is, i think the legislature is about ten years behind the public. for example, i have introduced amendments to quit sending money to egypt and build bridges here in the the united states instead of in egypt. and i bet you 90% of the american people agree with me but 80% of my senators disagree.

i argue the senate is not up-to-date with what the people really want. >> chris: senator, we have to leave it there, thanks for joining us and it is good to talk with you, sir. >> thank you. >> chris: up next, the supreme court will hear two cases this week involving same sex marriage. we'll have a fair and balanced debate about what the court should do when we come right back. ♪ more energy.ds where's it going to come from? ♪ that's why right here, in australia, chevron is building one of the biggest natural gas projects in the world. enough power for a city the size of singapore for 50 years. what's it going to do to the planet? natural gas is the cleanest conventional fuel there is. we've got to be smart about this. it's a smart way to go. ♪ i work for 47 different companies. well, technically i work for one. that company, the united states postal service®

works for thousands of home businesses. because at usps.com® you can pay, print and have your packages picked up for free. i can even drop off free boxes. i wear a lot of hats. well, technically i wear one. the u.s. postal service®, no business too small. no they don't. hey son. have fun tonight. ♪

♪ back against the wall ♪ ain't nothin to me ♪ ain't nothin to me [ crowd murmurs ] hey! ♪ [ howls ] ♪ >> chris: people are already starting to line up outside of the supreme court, camping out

in the washington chill, to hear arguments on a pair of high-profile same sex marriage cases starting tuesday them. justices will spend two days on the cases which, potentially, could decide the rights of same sex couples. joining us from connecticut, nicole wallace, former advisor to president george w. bush, who supports same sex marriage. and, here in washington, gary bauer, president of the group, american values, who opposes it. welcome to both of you. >> thank you, good to be with you, chris. >> thanks, chris. >> chris: nicole, you and more than 100 other promise intents republicans have filed a brief in the supreme court case, in which you argue the court should overturn proposition 8, a constitutional amendment, approved by california voters, which said that marriage -- only marriage between a man and a woman is valid. you want to overturn that. explain to us why your position is consistent with conservative values. >> well, first of all, the people who will stand before the

united states supreme court, are ted olson, who was president bush's solicitor germaneral, onf the most respected legal minds on the right and david boies who represented al gore on t-- represented the president and al gore in the recount. and there is not a place in the constitution that allows for a different associate rules for a different class of people and there is a moral imperative here. if you believe and value and treasure and revere the institution of marriage, then you should want every family unit to be really wrapped in marriage, and, if you believe that children are best raised in families where both of their parents are married, there is certainly no other answer than to overturn something like prop 8 which would deny an entire class of people access to this revered institution. >> chris: gary, conservatives like nicole and ted olson, very

conservative lawyer in his brief, on her side, to overturn prop 8. say that same sex marriage advances limited government, individual freedom, and family values. >> yes, chris, well, look, you don't advance limited government by being an anti-democratic movement that is attempting to take this issue away from the american people. what the brief is asking for and what the groups waiting outside the supreme court are asking for, is for unelected judges to deny the people of the states the right to decide what marriage is in their state. over 30 states in this country have voted that marriage is between a man and a woman and of course the votes are only being held because there has been this radical movement in the last couple of decades, that is trying to redefine marriage so it is a profoundly unconservative thing. it, in fact, is the kind of brief that nicole and the others have signed, that i would expect from liberal democrats, who -- let me finish the sentence -- who have used the courts for the

last 30 years, to force radical social change, time and time again. >> chris: are you saying, then, you would oppose a striking down of a right to same sex marriage, you want to leave it in the state legislature? >> look, i would prefer every state in the union keep the definition of marriage that prevailed in western civilization for a couple thousand years. that doesn't look like that is going to happen. so, i certainly at this point would prefer the people of the states to make the decision, as they -- and by the way, chris, it is worth mentioning that the briefs that nicole is supporting, which supports the judge, the prop 8 judge, somebody ought to read his decision, his animus, his hostility to people of faith, was disgusting. >> chris: all right, he's not here to defend himself, but, people can read it if they want and the other case, the court will hear and there are two big cases involves the defense of marriage act. >> right. >> chris: which president clinton signed in 1996.

which bans federal marital benefits for same sex couples who are legally married in their states. you have acknowledged states have the right to declare, to decide that same sex marriage is legal. as a conservative, isn't marriage a state issue and, therefore, should federal interference, wouldn't that be unconstitutional? >> well, i don't think so. and near did a democratic president and overwhelming -- >> he changed his mine, though. >> of course a lot of people are changing their minds because there has been a full-court blitz of -- blitz by the popular culture, by elites and all kinds of folks to intimidate and to cower people into no longer defending marriage between a -- >> let me bring -- go ahead, nicole. >> chris, chris, the biggest problem that mr. bauer faces, not just this morning but moving forward is that more than 65% of his own base, self-describing

evangelical christians, under the age of 33, support marriage equality. 80% of people in the country, right, left, democrat, republican, man, woman, support marriage equality. more than 60% of all americans, everyone, supports marriage equality. and that very some activist court that he railed against, which... always sides on the side of freedom. they are the same court that overturned gun bans, for overreaching. >> nicole -- >> the same court that overturned campaign finance reform. for overreaching and we can despise the courts for the activism when we don't like their behavior, but... this is the cou-- you can't say it isn' the court that always sides on liberals -- you can interrupt me all you want. >> chris: that is me, nicole, that is me. but, i'm trying to play devil's advocate here.

would you like to see the court rule that there is a constitutional right to same sex marriage, and what about the argument that if you do that, that you preempt the political debate that has gone on in this country? i want to put up a quote from ruth bader ginsburg, the justice, who was a big supporter of abortion rights but has problems with roe vs. wade and she said, it's not that the judgment was wrong, but, it moved too far, too fast and she said the reason we are still arguing about abortion, 40 years later, is because it came down through a judicial fiat when it was being worked out by the states. >> yeah, look, i think we all know, especially from watching the health care decision, that just came down, that there are about, i don't know, ten different things the court could do. they could strike narrowly the prop 8 decision, have a more broad ruling and we'll wait and see what they do. but, what is going to happen in the country is that eventually,

there will be nobody left to book on a show like this to debate both sides of the issue. eventually as time marches on, this is a country that believes pretty squarely in marriage equality. >> chris: if that is the case then why not just let the state legislators do it and not ask the court to declare some overwhelming new constitutional right? >> well, you just heard from rand paul. legislatures are ten years behind the public and senator paul gave you a reason not to do that. but i can't instruct the supreme court what to do. we'll see what they do this week. >> that is exactly what the brief does, it tries to instruct the supreme court what to do and frankly, the argument that the public is overwhelmingly in favoof same sex marriage, chris, is ludicrous. 33 states have voted to keep marriage the union of one man and one woman. you touched on the key issue here. if it was so obvious that the american public wants to try a

radical social experiment that results in children in those households, definitely, definitely, not having a mother and a father. that is what makes marriage a special institution. it guarantees that women, children have mothers and fathers. if the opinion of the american public was so overwhelming the gay rights mutual and allies like nicole wouldn't be asking -- movement and allies like nicole -- she's saying to the people, you have no say on this issue. >> chris: the "washington post" had a new poll out this week and let's look at what it said. i take your point about the fact the vast majority of the states banned it. 58% now think same sex marriage is legal and 39%, illegal, ten years ago the numbers were reverse, 37% legal and 55% legal and there is a big generational shift, among people between 18-39 the margin is 70%-27. now, i'm not suggesting that, you know, big, deep, moral an

constitutional issues should be decided by polls. but, you are also a republican, and in addition to being a social conservative. do you worry that this only puts the republican party further out of touch with the mainstream of american voters? >> i'm not worried about that. because the polls are skewed, chris. just this past november, four states, very liberal states, voted on this issue. and my side lost all four of those votes but my side had 45, 46% of the vote in all four of those liberal states. in fact, those marriage amendments that i supported, that would keep marriage of a man and a woman, out ran mitt romney in those four liberal states by an average of 5 points. >> chris: no, we're out of time and i have to go to nicole and i want to ask one final question. how important -- and again i don't think the politics of this should be the determinative factor, and hopefully won't be in the supreme court. how important do you think same sex marriage is as a gateway issue for republicans

maintaining credibility with new younger voters? >> i think what is most important is that the debate remains civilized and remain intellectual and remain a debate about the role of marriage in our lives and we have to have room in ourpat party for both mr. bauer and me. >> chris: unusual agreement, thank you both and thanks for talking with us and we'll hear what the justices have to say when they consider these two cases this week. thanks for coming in. >> thank you. >> chris: up next, we'll continue this discussion with our sunday group. will the supreme court make a sweeping decision or decide these cases on narrow grounds? ♪ impact wool exports from new zealand, textile production in spain, and the use of medical technology in the u.s.? at t. rowe price, we understand the connections of a complex, global economy. it's just one reason over 75% of our mutual funds beat their 10-year lipper average. t. rowe price. invest with confidence.

request a prospectus or summary prospectus with investment information, risks, fees and expenses to read and consider carefully before investing. was a record collection. no. there was that fuzzy stuff on the gouda. [ both ] ugh! when it came to our plants... we were so confused. how much is too much water? too little? until we got miracle-gro moisture control. it does what basic soils don't by absorbing more water, so it's there when plants need it. yeah, they're bigger and more beautiful. guaranteed. in pots. in the ground. in a ukulele. are you kidding me? that was my idea. with the right soil... everyone grows with miracle-gro.

with the right soil... sofa... desk... you know what? why don't you go get some frozen yogurt. i got this. you're so sweet. you got this, right? i do got this. let us get everything off the shelf, and to your home.

i got this. you're so sweet. you got this, right? i do got this. let us get everything off the shelf, and to your home.

♪ >> my opinion is borne out of my childhood, my faith, my beliefs. that marriage is between one man and one woman. >> here's what i think about it, it definitely unconstitutional. >> chris: house speaker boehner and democratic leader nancy pelosi on opposite sides of the two same sex marriage cases including doma, the defense of marriage act. our panel, newt gingrich, evan byah, jennifer rubin of the "washington post" and, fox news analyst juan williams. you oppose same sex marriage but want to see the court make a sweeping decision or a narrow

decision to leave it where it is now in various state legislatures. >> they are making the point, look at the percentage of support. if that is true, over time the american people will indicate that through elections and primaries and referendums. they would be far better off to decide the cases on the narrowest possible grounds. >> chris: you wouldn't want to see a sweeping decision against -- >> a huge mistake and undermine respect for the judiciary. >> chris: senator, how far would you like to see the court go and how far do you expect them to go. >> it means trying to read the mind of justice kennedy and my guess is he'd be reluctant to strike down the laws of the 41 states that currently prohibit same sex marriage or allow civil unions. but, on the other hand, seize the broad sweep of history here, the direction the country is moving, which is to embrace same

sex unions, morerobustly and i k you will see middle ground. >> i think the time has come for our society to accept the union between two individuals. i think it is, from a conservative point of view, individuals supporting one another, supporting their families, so that society at large does not have to, is good for the rest of us. >> chris: but, would you like to see the court declare some big constitutional right or would you rather leave it in the political arena? >> i would prefer to see us have a uniform standard for the country. but, 20 years from now, chris, i don't think it will matter and will be legal in all 50 states. >> chris: jennifer, you are for those who don't know it a first-timer on the panel, a conservative columnist and blogger for the "washington post." you have written, social conservatives have already lost the battle among voters on same sex marriage and should leave it up to the political process. what do you mean, they've lost the battle. >> well if you look at the polls your previous guests were talking about, there has been a sea change, and, among

conservatives and republicans and all americans, and i think, it is ten years or 20 years since the senator said we will not talk about it anymore and i think you are seeing a movement, a swift movement, particularly, among younger people. i don't think that the supreme court would be wise to follow in roe an preempt the field by holding a 14th amendment right to gay marriage. i think it should be left to the states and i think that is where the marriage proponents, i think, will have a field day. they are making the argument, persuading americans, one by one, state by state, i think you get a legitimacy from the political process. >> chris: but what about the argument gary bauer made, and the statistics are on his side, the vast majority of states, i think, well over 30, have banned same sex marriage. when it has come up for a vote. >> that is the beauty of the 10th amendment, you do have states that are allowed to determine their own fate and i think if the gay marriage proponents are successful and they have been so far, gradually you will see the number decrease. i personally don't have a

problem if alabama or louisiana or another state wants to maintain that. but, by the same token i think over time it will shift. young people are befuddled when conservatives say, there should be only marriage between men and women. over 80% of young people feel differently. so it may not be today or tomorrow, but in another ten or 20 years it will be a decided issue. >> chris: do you see it as a legal and a political issue? >> on the legal side i don't think you can deny a human being, american citizen your constitutional right. under the 14th amendment you have an equal right, it seems to me, to marry. if you want to say, to somebody, listen, i think the court has two big options, one is called the 8 state solution and you say, these are states that say you can have still a marriage but can't have marriage per se, can't have a gay marriage, you can have a civil marriage and if that is the case, why are you stigmatizing marriage. and the california case it would be a matter, where you have been

granted the right to marriage. so, in both situations, it seems to me, wait a minute. you have a constitutional right. a human being and an american citizen and you should ever equal rights, coast-to-coast. but you asked the critical question, what the rest of the panel is talking about this morning. the politics are if the court rules, everybody will be angry at the court and everybody who doesn't like it will say, that supreme court, they are elite and trying to tell us what to document justice kennedy, who senator by is likely to be the swing vote, you know, you can't have nine unelected people who are narrowly focused on the law, making big decisions for the country. if that is the case, if that is the way they feel, they will make a political decision, and say, it is up to the states, let 'em do what they want. but that is not a matter of the constitution, and constitutional rights. >> chris: i'll bring in speaker gingrich. do you think he's right on the constitution. >> two key points here. first of all, when the founding

fathers decided to replace the articles of confederation they wrote the most elaborate campaign brochure in history and went to the people of the states and said we have to gain legitimacy from your vote and didn't figure out an elite way to have a coup d'etat. second, is there is a core question here. there is no constitutional right invented magically, 150 years, after an amendment. i mean, we have been through the cycle over the last 40 years, where we think that a handful of judges, 5-4 decisions, get to pretend they are a constitutional convention and i think it is a very dangerous process across the system. >> chris: the 14th amendment, equal protection under the law. >> that has never, ever been applied in this case and i suggest that is the point. 150 years after we adopted an amendment the current generation by 5-4 among the elite decide, oh, it has a totally new meaning. why have an amending process and, eliminate that and say as long as 5 out of 9 judges agree

we have a constitutional -- >> let me ask you about another aspect. the other case, doma, defense of marriage act which basically says the federal government will not allow benefits for couples who in their states have been legally married. >> i think that is a much harder problem, not just for the court but for conservatives, and i've made the point in december. i believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. i believe in fact that pope francis's arguments, on relativism are powerful but i believe there are fax on the ground. and, one of the facts is going to be, the state says we are going to limit marriage between a man and woman but, by the way, american citizens visit from a different state. now, what happens to that situation? i mean, i think we are now going to be muddled and i think for the health of country it is better to have the muddle in the legislative bodies and politics than it is to have it cut through by five people on a 5-4 vote. >> chris: we should point out it is interesting, i didn't realize this: the case that is going before the court involves a woman, a

lesbian who was involved for many years in a marriage, her partner died. and, she is not getting the exemption that a normal spouse, a heterosexual spouse would get and had to pay taxes on the entire estate left to her and it is a direct case and gets to what rand paul was talking about, senator by, the question of should marriage be part of the tax code? >> well, this is the muddle we're in and it could be the middle ground justice kennedy tries to strike is not finding an equal protection issue here, but respecting the decisions of the states, so a woman in this case, if she came from a state that recognized same sex unions would be entitled to the -- have the union respected and all the inheritance benefits and others that would come along with it. >> chris: we have to take a break, when we come back, the president's trip to the middle east. what markers did he set for iran? syria? and relations between israel and the palestinians? ♪

[ male announcer ] staples has always made getting office supplies easy. ♪ another laptop? don't ask. disappear! abracadabra! alakazam! [ male announcer ] and now we're making it easier to get everything for your business. and for my greatest trick! enough! [ male announcer ] because whatever you need, we'll have it or find it, and get it to you fast. staples. that was easy. we'ltoday is gonna be an, important day for us.t. you ready? we wanna be our brother's keeper. what's number two we wanna do? bring it up to 90 decatherms. how bout ya, joe? let's go ahead and bring it online. attention on site, attention on site. now starting unit nine. some of the world's cleanest gas turbines are now powering some of america's biggest cities. siemens. answers. but that doesn't mean i don't want to make money.stor. i love making money.

i try to be smart with my investments. i also try to keep my costs down. what's your plan? ishares. low cost and tax efficient. find out why nine out of ten large professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. ishares by blackrock. call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus which includes investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. read and consider it carefully before investing. risk includes possible loss of principal. >> chris: check out fox news sunday.com, for behind-the-scenes features, panel-plus, and, our special monday preview of the week ahead. you can find it, at foxnewssunday.com and be sure to let us know what you think. stay tuned, for more from our panel. ♪

sees better than ever. ♪ charges faster. and will charge. cool. and heat. from your phone. fact: leaf never needs gas. ever. good for the world. built in america. now, leaf's an easier choice than ever. ♪ shop at choosenissan.com. ♪

♪ >> president barack obama: the united states often finds itself in a situation where if it goes militarily it is criticized for that and if it doesn't, people say, why didn't you do anything militarily. >> chris: president obama defending his refusal to help the rebels in syria. we are back now with the panel. the president is continuing -- and i was thinking how to describe it, half in, half out policy with regard to the civil war in syria. he is expanding training and expanding intelligence support for the secular rebels but this at a time while the al-mazraa front of rebels, jihadist, seems to be strengthening and the bloodshed continues. speaker gingrich, it is a tough issue. what is the right answer. >> i think we have a massive bipartisan failure extending now over a decade to be honest how

hard the problem is. it is all going to be a worse, in libya, egypt, syria, worse in iraq, it is going to be worse in iran -- >> what should the president do, intervene militarily and set up a possibility for jihadist rebels. >> that is the problem. we have no national strategist and we haven't begun the debate how we'll live in a world where people -- talk about peace process. which is an insanity. the president, the morning he arrives rockets are fired into israel and we blithely talk about a peace process as though one faction of the palestinians could deliver it if they wanted to. the fact is, the most militant faction the palestinians want to destroy israel, hezbollah and the muslim brotherhood wants to destroy israel and iran wants to destroy israel and western politicians go along with the media and blab about, if only we had a peace process. with whom? >> chris: this week, carl levin the democratic chair of the senate armed services committee

joined john mccain in calling for airstrikes to stick out the air force and skud missiles, and senator, what should the president do in sear yeah, given all of the complications, and, how important was this raproachment, and, when it comes to the syrian civil war. >> as the speaker said, the situation in syria has been a mess for a long time and is likely to be a mess for a long time no matter what we do. there are deep religious and ethnic differences and the end game is a civil war that will involve ethnic cleansing and a whole list of other things, why would we want to get ourselves directly in the middle of that? the president has decided with no good option, to pursue the best of that bad options, use covert means, allies, transport indigenous groups that are more favorable to us, and with

respect to what you said about carl and my friend, john mccain, i would make an exception when it comes to weapons of mass destruction. if we have solid intelligence that chemical and biological weapons are about to fall into the hands of hezbollah or al qaeda you go in and act laying with the turks and others to... >> chris: not just to intervene in the civil war? >> no, but we have a strategic interest to ensure weapons of mass destruction don't get out of syria. with regard to turkey and israel. the forces of stability are few and far between in that part of the world. it is important that those that favor stability, turkey and israel among them, be on the same page. they had a difference, and the president served the role of bringing them together. and that is the useful thing and the final thing i'll mention, the takeaway from the trip, we will not know for a long time. i suspect there were a lot of conversations about iran going on in the background and what to do with the next 12 months when we reach the red line with regard to iran and will be the key take away. >> chris: help me make sense of this.

>> we have the choice, because the president was passive for so long. the choices are not between doing nothing and doing everything. if the president moved more swiftly and not gone to the u.n. three times, and had a mother may i situation which the russians of course blocked, we might have been able to prevent an early -- a long, rather, prolonged fight and now we have 5,000 jihadis all overseer yeah. had we moved more swiftly to drop the preposterous positions and, to aid and outreach and secular elements early not we wouldn't be in a situation where we have 5,000 jihadis and the lesson is not never do anything, the answer is, american leadership is crucial in that part of the region. that part of the world. now, with regard to turkey and israel, i sure hope that netanyahu got something good for this. what he did was apologize for defending israel. the u.n. of all places, passed a

report, put out a report, saying that israel was justified in self-defense and justified -- >> quickly, was the three -- three years ago, a turkish ship with peace people and adriati a tried to breach the blockade and to reach the palestinians and, israelis killed people. >> and people were there with weapons and people who threw israeli soldiers into the sea. the u.n., who issued a report, remarkable for the u.n., saying, israel had a right to defend itself and had a right to maintain the blockade and now the president is leaning on israel to solicit an apology. did israel get something in return? i hope so, otherwise it makes it like obama is leaning on the israelis. >> chris: juan, i'll switch subjects on you. with the focus on syria and the focus on iran there was

relatively little talk about the prospects for a peace deal between the israelis and the palestinians. but the president did address it in the speech, in jerusalem. >> president barack obama: peace is possible. it is possible. [applause]. >> president barack obama: i'm not saying it is guaranteed. i can't even say that it is more le likely than not but it is possible. >> chris: the big news here, the president seemed to be dropping his insistence that israel had to stop the settlement construction first before there were direct talks and faleaned the palestinians and said, look, if you make a final deal the settlements will take care of themselves. how big a movement is that? >> a big movement in terms of reframing the discussion because at the moment everybody is frozen, stalled. they can't come to a decision about the settlements because you know, obviously the palestinians view it as occupied territory and the israelis are moving in and the israelis view it as a matter of their own

security and their own rights and if y and if you focus on settlement, we are not going anywhere but if you say we want sovereignty for a palestinian state and get back to the two-state solution discussions, hopefully you can open some minds and, again, return to the table. you know -- >> let me ask, though, what speaker gingrich said, which is, you don't really have a reliable partner, to negotiate with? >> no, again, if you take that perspective and throw your hands up and say, we can't do anything. to the contrary, there are a number of arab states who have a strong interest in seeing a solution, in part, because they are threatened by iran and what may take place in iran. they have a real reason, spe sectarian crisis taking place, to prevent iran from getting stronger. >> chris: speaker, how do you assess the president's middle east trip and what did he accomplish. >> we won't know for 6 weeks or 2 or 3 months and if it is the

beginning of a real relationship between... the prime minister and prime minister of israel it is a big deal and if it was a temporary moment, then so be it. turkey is now under enormous pressure as is jordan from all the refugees, over 2 million syrians now are in turkey. so, this is a much more complicated world than just israel and palestinians. there is a swirling kaleidoscope of problems that are growing in the middle east. and, of course, at the heart of all of it, they are sitting in year, watching this, building nuclear weapons and biding their time to dominate the gulf. >> chris: on that happy note, thank you, panel, see you next week. don't forget to check out panel plus where our group picks up with a discussion on our web site, foxnewssunday.com and we'll post the video before noon eastern time and make sure and follow us on twitter twitter, @foxnewssunday. up next our power player of the week.

>> chris: i can tell how good our power player is by how many members of our staff want to go to the interview. everyone want to go this week. so enjoy our power player of the week. ♪ >> meet the mascot of the u.s. marines. this english bull dog is the face of the corps. ♪

>> the mascot is involved in a number of official functions here in washington. >> we are proud to introduce the official mascot of the barracks, washington, d.c... >> engaging with senior level leadership and government o officials. >> chris: he's the officer of the marine barracks and he's the spokesman. >> they are kind of grouchy but at the end of the day they'll be there for you and accomplish the mission. >> chris: there is about to be a changing of the guard. the dog will retire this summer and the recruit is expected to become a private in april shg, training to take his place. >> he's getting indoctrinated in his surroundings and into the esprit de corps we do with all of our troops. >> chris: there you go.

>> there you go. >> chris: he has his own uniform, complete with sergeant chevrons and service medals and for the recruit, let's say he has a ways to go. to match up to the sergeant. >> we're looking at him to mentor the young recruit and set a positive example for him. >> chris: he's got big paws to fill. the tradition goes back to world war i. when the germans called the marines devil dogs. in the early 1920s, privet jiggs formally enlisted, and he was named after lewis chesty puller. and they take it all seriously. >> we have had him busted back in rank before. >> chris: how did the dogs take it. >> marines don't take it well when they are demoted. it is a message, we can't have a mascot running around, biting, barking and doing things that